Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Staunton, March 15 – The release of
a few prisoners and “the stylistic softening of the Russian regime” has led
some to suggest Vladimir Putin is promoting “a thaw” on the model of the 1950s,
Sergey Shelin says, completely forgetting that such a move “does not contradict”
either growing centralization of power or greater restrictions on the life of the
population.

The Rosbalt commentator notes that “literally
over the course of several weeks, the word ‘thaw’ succeeded not only to become
fashionable but to go out of fashion as well” once people saw that the release
of Dadin and Chudnovets “wasn’t going to open an era of a major softening” in
the regime (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2017/03/14/1598622.html).

Belief in “a second edition” of a
thaw has arisen at least in part, Shelin says, because many now have a mistaken
idea about the original.“The Soviet
thaw arose in 1953-1954 when Beriya and Malenkov ruled the country. It
continued until the mid-1960s, frequently changing its priorities, among which
the liberalization of the system was never at the top of the list.”

The term “thaw” itself came from
Ilya Ehrenburg’s short story which was published in early 1954. But as he pointed
out, the authorities never accepted it and invariably criticized the ideas that
he presented.The second edition,
however, is one that the Kremlin and its allies aren’t upset about at all.

Indeed, many, feeling that they have
support “from above” are pushing the idea of a new thaw forward, and in Moscow
now, Shelin says, there are “several large nostalgic exhibits on the theme of the
Soviet thaw at the Tretyakoov and the Museum of Moscow.”

It is now possible to suggest with
some precision exactly what the current bosses mean when they talk about “a thaw.”First of all, they are referring to “the
freeing of those convicted in the most insane and clearly false political and
ideological charges,” something that opposition figures will certainly welcome
as a sign of positive change.

Second, the powers that be want
propaganda to become less flamboyant and more regular and even respectful than
it had become.Third, they want to
promote the role of the Duma, not as a representative of the people but as a
link between the authorities at the top and the rest of the country, and they
want to eliminate the production of laws outrageous on their face.

Fourth, the Kremlin powers want “to
do away with the remnants of the autonomy of local self-administration,” by
integrating even the lowest levels of state administration into a single power
vertical that will respond only to signals above and be impervious to any
efforts at influence by the population or even by elites.

And fifth, they want to push forward
technocrats into positions of authority in the presidential administration,
among governors and in federal bureaucracies because “technocrats are unified
by a love for the order of the drill field in all spheres of life from politics
to economics” and they view the people as something that must simply confirm to
these rules.

According to Shelin, “all of these
taken together form the 2017 variant of a thaw. In fact, this course began to
be put in place last year, but its precise shape has appeared only in this one.”
It is very much “a new policy especially after the stormy period of 2014-2015.”

This “thaw” may allow for more
freedom in certain extremely small areas but “only there where that doesn’t
interfere with the growth of centralization.” Where it does, what freedoms may
exist will be “liquidated without any vacillation.”And everyone from top to bottom will be expected
to live according to rules set from the top.

At the same time, Shelin continues, “the
power machine is seeking to return to itself a certain correctness of manners
and expressions which were lost over the last several years and also give a
certain ‘scientific quality’ to its decisions” about society and the state. But
what is critical is that any step the regime makes can be reversed in an
instant if the Kremlin wants to.

“Stylistically,” he says, this will “sometimes
recall if not liberalism than at least tolerance” and intellectuals will be
allowed “to assemble in specially designated places and freely talk about the fates
of the world and the country, about religion and atheism, about fine arts and
the historic path of Russia,” as long as they don’t cross paths with the
powers.

Should this be called a real thaw? The
Rosbalt commentator asks. “One can if one likes,” but it is unlikely to ever be
what many appear to expect.